Are Your Granted Patents in Danger of a Post-Grant Double Patenting Challenge?
The Briefing: A Prototypical Corporate Salesperson is Not Patentable
Podcast: The Briefing - A Prototypical Corporate Salesperson is Not Patentable
Ways to Amend the Claims in the Patent Invalidation Proceedings
Patent Right Evaluation Report in China’s Patent System
Stages of Patent Invalidation Proceedings
In a precedential ruling that underscores the importance of consistency in claim drafting, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a claim construction based on an improper interpretation of the...more
This Federal Circuit opinion analyzes the presumption of obviousness and the obviousness challenge based on prior art that describes a wider range of doses than what is claimed....more
IGT v. ZYNGA INC. - Before Prost, Reyna, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Interference estoppel does not apply when the interference was terminated due to a threshold issue....more
The Patent Office recently announced that it will begin enforcing a rule that requires that inter partes review (IPR) petitions “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed...more
In a decision that should make every patent litigator pause before filing for preliminary relief, the Federal Circuit has vacated a preliminary injunction in FMC Corp. v. Sharda USA, LLC, No. 2024-2335 after finding that the...more
Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance, Co., Ltd., et al. v. CH Lighting Technology Co., Ltd., et al., No. 2023-1715 (Fed. Cir. (W.D. Tex.) July 28, 2025). Opinion by Dyk, joined by Chen and Hughes....more
After the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s non-obviousness determination, the district court again found that Teva failed to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that the claims of Janssen’s patent...more
Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: UTC’s ’782 patent claims a method for treating pulmonary hypertension (“PH”). PH manifests in different varieties, including pulmonary arterial hypertension (“PAH”) and pulmonary...more
On July 18, 2025, after a five-day trial, the jury in Allergan v. Revance Case No. 1:21-cv-01411 (D. Del.) entered a verdict finding claim 8 of Allergan’s U.S. Patent No. 7,354,740 (“the ’740 patent”), claim 6 of U.S. Patent...more
IGT v. Zynga Inc., No. 2023-2262 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) July 22, 2025). Opinion by Taranto, joined by Prost and Reyna. IGT owns a patent related to secured virtual networks in gaming environments. After the patent application was...more
On July 14, 2025 Fresenius filed two IPR petitions challenging Regeneron’s patents related to aflibercept. Regeneron has not asserted that Fresenius infringes either of these patents in district court litigation; however,...more
SHOCKWAVE MED., INC., V. CARDIOVASCULAR SYS., INC. - Before Lourie, Dyk, and Cunningham. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2019-00405. In inter partes review...more
On July 22, 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (the “PTAB”) decision not to apply interference estoppel and, therefore, to institute an inter partes review...more
The estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) had largely prevented requesters from challenging claims of a patent via ex parte reexamination after an inter partes review (IPR) that resulted in a final written decision...more
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. Before Prost, Reyna, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Federal Circuit found that claims reciting a...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of an inter partes review (IPR) brought by Par-Kan Company, LLC against Unverferth Manufacturing Company regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,967,940 (“the ‘940 patent”). ...more
Last month, we provided an overview of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) application of the “settled expectations” doctrine, articulated in recent PTAB director-level decisions. Interim Director Coke Morgan Stewart...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit clarified that while applicant-admitted prior art (AAPA) may be cited as evidence of general background knowledge in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, it cannot serve as...more
The Unified Patent Court – a one-stop-shop for European patent litigation – is now two years old. As it enters its third year of operation, we look at the approach that is becoming established in the new system, drawing out...more
The Federal Circuit recently issued a precedential decision in Shockwave Med., Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. (CSI), affirming-in-part and reversing-in-part the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) decision, and...more
One year has passed since the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit made its landmark decision in LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Tech. Operations LLC, which overruled the longstanding Rosen-Durling test for determining design...more
Received wisdom is that inter partes review proceedings are limited to prior art as defined by patents and printed publications. But in recently decided Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., another prior...more
Purdue Pharma (Purdue) has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari challenging a recent Federal Circuit decision upholding the invalidation of several Purdue patents on grounds of obviousness....more
On June 30, 2025, Perceptix filed suit against Meta Platforms for infringement of U.S. Patent 8,498,439, which describes a headphone that turns on when it is worn. The ‘439 Patent is assigned to the Electronics and...more
On June 9, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) issued a Final Written Decision (“FWD”) in Merck’s IPR2024-00240 against The Johns Hopkins University’s (“JHU”) U.S. Patent No. 11,591,393 (“the ’393 patent”),...more